24-70 II

<p>So who is interested in the new 24-70 f2.8II? Even at $2,299?</p>

<p>But I'm sure the price will settle to under $2,000. But no IS!</p>

<p>And here is the <a href="http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/lenses/ef_lens_lineup/lens_standard_pro/ef_24_70mm_f_2_8l_ii_usm">official Canon link</a>.</p>

<p>805 grams, vs the old 950 grams. 82mm, vs old 77mm. About 1/2" shorter. Same closest focus distance: .38 meter. Looks nothing like the old beast. But no IS, dang!</p>

<p>Mendel, </p>

<p>I thought Nikon had faired far worse in the recent Asian problems, it seems Canon is determined to drop as many balls as possible! </p>

<p>I don't believe they couldn't have put IS in there for minimal weight and size and that is the one feature that many would have upgraded for, I know I would. So now we are in the 70-200 IS MkI /MkII situation, is the new lens really worth that much more? And I really liked the way the hood works on the 24-70 MkI, with the lens being longest at 24, this gives a really deep sand effective hood, seems the MkII doesn't work like that.</p>

<p>The current version of the lens never really appealed to me. This one will be even less so... Oh well :)</p>

<p>I fail to understand what makes Canon charge $900 more than MK1 for this lens ($1399 vs. $2299)?</p>

Ashish,

 

Who knows? But the truth is if is sharper it will sell, same as the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII. But I doubt the price will stay above

$2,000 for any amount of time.

<p>So Tamron put IS in their new 24-70mm, it has been rumoured in this Canon lens for years. What happened? <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57371808-264/tamrons-24-70mm-lens-takes-image-stabilization-lead/">http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57371808-264/tamrons-24-70mm-lens-takes-image-stabilization-lead/</a></p>

<p>Like many, I've been waiting for an update of this lens for a long time. For part of my shooting needs, I can't do without. The lack of IS in the new lens is very disappointing. I'm sure IQ is improved, but given the steep price increase, it makes for a tough pill to swallow with no IS.</p>

<p>Why Canon, why? Why do I have to turn to third party lenses if I want stabilization? <br>

:-(</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

<p>Wow, the MTF charts on this thing are amazing! In theory, it is significantly better than the Mk 1.</p>

<p>I just noticed that it has an 82mm filter thread size. For my wide angle I specifically went with the 17-40 for it's 77mm size. Getting this lens would set me back quite a bit in buying new filters.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why do I have to turn to third party lenses if I want stabilization?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yakim, none of the 3rd party lenses (in this range: FF, wide->normal, fast) have stabilization as an option either. To tell you the truth, the lack of stabilized competing lenses in this range is probably why they didn't bother... The first one that gets released that does (assuming it's reasonably functional) will sweep the market.</p>

<p>Of course, the MTFs do look pretty damn good.... Better be for $2000+</p>

<p>Marcus, you must have missed the link in Glen Flower's post up there.</p>

I am quite happy with my Mk I and will not upgrade. I do not find the need for IS on this lens so even if Canon had added

it I would not have upgraded. Perhaps this is because I started shooting with MF lenses and the ISOs of film. I can't

remember when I needed to shoot at 50mm f2.8 1/15 and ISO 3200

<p>Scott Ferris (in part):</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>And I really liked the way the hood works on the 24-70 MkI, with the lens being longest at 24, this gives a really deep sand effective hood, seems the MkII doesn't work like that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was wondering about that. The reverse zoom does make for very efficient hood design. That said, I always left mine at home, LOL. And:</p>

<p>I find my 24-70 <em>very</em> prone to flare and contrast reduction when there's a light source just beyond the frame, fwiw. The hood made little or no difference to this effect. It renders the scene a sort of ruddy golden hue. The 24-105 was much better, pretty much impervious, in this regard.</p>

<p>The filter size increase sucks, put's users in same situation as 16-35 I vs II.</p>

<p>For me this is a non-event. I know my 24-70 mark I is optically superior to my 24-105, obviously faster, and capable of closer macro. But it's bulk/weight, the flare issue <em>and</em> the lack of IS tipped me to the 24-105 almost all the time.</p>

<p>To tell the truth, I`m sort of in the photography doldrums anyway, but that`s another story, LOL.</p>

Mendel do you use a protection /UV filter? I find my 24-70 worse than the 24-105 but not that bad.

<p>Wow. $2K for a non-stabilized lens. Impressive. Very impressive (and not in a good way).</p>

<p>Very disapointed it doesn't have IS. And strange Canon put IS in the outstanding 17-55f/2.8 but not in the new 24-70f/2.8. At that price the IQ better rival the best primes.<br>

I was so looking forward to a 5DMKIII with a EF24-70f/2.8L IS. But, I guess that will save me a lot of money because I will just continue to use the 7D and 17-55f/2.8 IS - thanks Canon.</p>

<p>You guys are worse than a sewing circle :-)<br>

The new 24-70 looks like a champ judging from the MTF charts and if the IQ jump is similar to that of the 70-200 II or 400/2.8 II vs. the previous models, it will be a stellar lens, IS or not. I am a great fan of fast IS lenses (200/2 L IS and 400/2.8 L IS in particular) but in the 24-70 mm range I can live without it, even though it would be nice. Now, whoever makes a FF 28-70 f/2 stabilized lens will get my business at any price :-)</p>

<p>I have to conclude that Canon has some good technical reasons for not putting IS in the 24-70. Too heavy, and compromises the optical performance is my guess, given that they were going to charge over $2000 for it. I couldn't care less about IS in this range myself, but you all seemed to want it and I don't think Canon are such dunderheads to not know this. The new stabilized Tamron 24-70-we can only wait to see what its performance is like but I suspect the new Canon will be much better (and so it should be for the price).</p>

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>We each have different needs. For me my current lens has kept many brides, and their mothers, happy for years on 21MP bodies, whilst I am sure bigger pixel counts will come, especially with Nikons announcement of the D800/800E, I have so far had very little need for more than I have. What would have induced me to throw down whatever money Canon wanted would have been increased functionality, IS. Many might not want or need it, but I suspect most of them will be in a similar situation to me, content with their MkI's.</p>

<p>You point out the MkII 70-200 and 400 f2.8, I have the MkI 70-200 and the 300 f2.8 MkI, I have not seen the need to upgrade, my lenses are very high quality and I'd rather have the $4,000 it would cost me to upgrade. They are both nearly ten years old and optically are as good as the day I got them, and that is plenty high enough.</p>

<p>Well, if you make money with your equipment than your decisions should make business sense.</p>

<p>Yet, even if using the "v.previous" of something makes you (and the brides and their mothers :-) perfectly happy, you might be even happier with the "newer and better." And to some people that's a good enough reason to upgrade/buy. <br>

As usual, before/after every equipment release from the majors there is a lot lunacy on the 'net, just read the posts from the crazies on dpreview and fredmiranda, mostly from the individuals whose ideas and convictions trample the real world and who feel that Canon has somehow disappointed/shorthanded them by not fulfilling their adolescent dreams. Yuck!</p>

 

<p>I do, but I have better things to spend my money on than a marginal increase in IQ that is unlikely to be noticed by my clients. Things like computers that give me more speed, items that increase in functionality or my productivity are better priorities. That is why I don't understand this new lens. This lens is not in competition for my money with another lens, it is in competition with things that make my job easier, better or faster, for me, and I expect many others, this new lens does not offer enough over the current one to justify.</p>

<p>I am not some lovestruck teenager, I make business decisions that make sense to me, sure many will buy it, but I wonder how many more would have if IS had been included. I would have been one.</p>

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>Sure there are a lot of gear heads who never intend on buying these lenses that are disappointed that this somehow diminishes the Canon brand (which is all that matters in the fanboy world). However, there are a lot of people who work with this equipment, either as a serious hobby or professionally who are disappointed and do feel slighted by what Canon has just released. </p>

<p>I'm sure Canon had some good reasons not to include IS in the new lens (likely due to IS compromising the optics a bit), but absent any statement from Canon, it does leave a lot of us wondering why, especially at the new, and very ludicrous, price point. In fact, most of Canon's new releases have left many of us asking what on earth they are doing. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm sure Canon had some good reasons not to include IS in the new lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>(likely due to IS compromising the optics a bit)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My guess is size and weight. The 70-200/2.8 IS II is actually optically superior to the Mk I.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>